Lies, damned lies – and EDF?

EDF CEO Jean-Bernard Levy knew the UK government wanted to take more time to review the Hinkley Point nuclear contract before the French utility’s board voted to approve the investment, he said in a letter to top executives.

EDF’s board narrowly approved the $24 billion project on July 28. But hours later the government of new British Prime Minister Theresa May, which had been expected to sign contracts the following day, instead said it wanted to give the plans further consideration.

The UK government postponed its final decision on the project until early autumn.

In comments to reporters at French state-controlled EDF’s first-half earnings release on July 29, Levy had said he had not been aware at the time of the board meeting that the British government wanted more time to review the contract.

In a letter emailed to EDF’s executive committee late on Tuesday this week, and reviewed by Reuters, Levy said that when he called the board meeting on July 21, he had done so with the go-ahead of the French state, which “had warned us that in light of her very recent arrival, the new British prime minister had asked for ‘a few days’ before deciding on the project”.

Levy said that late on July 27, the night before the board meeting, he was informed that May wanted “a bit more time, without calling into question the project, and without specifying the date when the contract could be signed”.

He added that EDF canceled a contract signing ceremony planned for July 29.

“When the board voted, on the afternoon of July 28, we (management) therefore knew that the ceremony would not take place the next day,” Levy wrote.

EDF declined to comment on Levy’s letter.

Source: Reuters News Agency

Bring back regular public meetings with politicians and public servants!

An article in today’s Guardian suggests that we need more accountability and transparency from those in public office and suggests that one way to do this is to ensure that our public servants and politicians are put on the spot more often by being expected to attend regular public meetings to explain themselves.

Not the carefully scripted and whipped official committee meetings, where the agenda is tightly controlled and policed, when many of them keep quiet and vote or act like sheep – but situations where they must think on their feet and tell us what they REALLY think (if they think at all).

Imagine if, say once a month, an individual councillor or officer or MP had to be available in the community to answer questions from local electors without warning of what those questions might be!

A few would definitely acquit themselves well – but a great majority in East Devon would definitely be floundering at the first question and thereafter!

An intriguing idea!

” … But social media have not destroyed the public meeting. They have done the opposite. Twitter, Facebook and the rest are indirectly responsible for the glorious revival of the gathering where real people meet in a physical place. For some of us, sitting behind a computer is not enough. We need to get out. What is beyond doubt is that the old-fashioned forum of the public meeting is back and is the perfect counter to social media.


For at least two decades, politicians assumed that a soundbite on the TV news bulletin was what mattered. Oratory as a part of the repertoire disappeared. Politics became technocratic rather than the art form it partly must be. The glory of the public meeting is that there is no escape. A speaker must deliver. The audience is composed of real people. The speaker cannot hide away tweeting alone in a room. People want to be there and need to be there, to be together out of curiosity or as part of what they see as a cause. … ”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/03/new-big-thing-politics-old-style-public-meeting-labour-battleground-live-events